21 Seabran, LLC v. Town of Naples, 153 A.3d 113

21 Seabran, LLC owns a Brandy Pond parcel with ~200 ft shore frontage, a three-bedroom single-family home, and a detached garage.
21 Seabran applied to renovate the garage second floor into a three-bedroom, two-bath “bunkhouse” and sought a separate septic system (design flow 270 gpd). CEO initially declined because the project did not meet the SWDR “bunkhouse” definition.
Amended applications described the space as “3 accessory bedrooms and 2 baths” (no kitchen shown); CEO denied permits, concluding the proposed structure was a “dwelling unit” and the lot lacked required lot area and shore frontage for two dwelling units under the Town of Naples Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (SZO), the State Minimum Lot Size Law, and the Minimum Lot Size Rules.
The Town Board of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the proposed structure was a residential dwelling unit and that the lot therefore needed 400 ft of frontage (200 ft per residential dwelling unit under the SZO). The Superior Court affirmed on Rule 80B review.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed: it held the SZO definition of “residential dwelling unit” requires cooking facilities (cooking, sleeping, and toilet), and because the Board made no finding of cooking facilities the structure was not a residential dwelling unit for SZO frontage purposes; the Court also held local SZO frontage rules not based on wastewater generation do not automatically expand the Minimum Lot Size Rule frontage requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proposed structure is a "residential dwelling unit" under the Town SZO	21 Seabran: no — plans show no kitchen; structure lacks cooking facilities so it is not a residential dwelling unit	Town/CEO/Board: yes — common-sense reading allows treating the space as a dwelling unit; portable cooking equipment could be added	Held: Court interpreted SZO definition de novo; SZO expressly requires cooking, sleeping, and toilet facilities. Because the Board made no finding of cooking facilities, treating the structure as a residential dwelling unit under the SZO was erroneous.
Whether local SZO frontage requirement (200 ft per residential dwelling unit) is incorporated into the State Minimum Lot Size Rules (increasing state-required frontage from 100 ft per 300 gpd)	21 Seabran: SZO frontage should not control Minimum Lot Size Rules; state rule governs (100 ft per 300 gpd)	Town: Rule 1001.1.1’s phrase "any greater frontage required by local zoning" incorporates local frontage requirements generally, so SZO’s 200-ft requirement applies	Held: Court ruled Rule 1001.1.1 incorporates only local frontage rules that are based on wastewater (gpd) concerns. Naples’ 200-ft SZO requirement is not based on wastewater and therefore does not expand the state Rule’s frontage requirement; the Board’s application of 200-ft per 300 gpd was erroneous.

Logan v. City of Biddeford, 905 A.2d 293 (Me. 2006) (agency de novo review principles in Rule 80B context)
Rudolph v. Golick, 8 A.3d 684 (Me. 2010) (Board acts as factfinder where it conducts de novo review)
Aydelott v. City of Portland, 990 A.2d 1024 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for ordinance interpretation)
Hartwell v. Town of Ogunquit, 115 A.3d 81 (Me. 2015) (courts must follow plain language of zoning ordinances)
Barnard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Yarmouth, 313 A.2d 741 (Me. 1974) (Minimum Lot Size Law focuses on health and sanitation and does not displace local zoning powers)
Goldman v. Town of Lovell, 592 A.2d 165 (Me. 1991) (municipal flexibility in defining dwelling unit where ordinance language is broad)